| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Stanley Kelley . | Member | ||
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he desires an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of obtaining benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He also claims that he was told at the time of his discharge that it would be upgraded to an HD automatically after six months; however, this never occurred.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 1 October 1970, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. The record also confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC), and that during his active duty tenure the only award he earned was the National Defense Service Medal. His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions. The first on 21 October 1971, which resulted in his reduction to private/E-2 (PV2); and the second on
29 February 1972, which resulted in his reduction to private/E-1 (PV1).
On 22 March 1972, four court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for his violation of the following articles of the UCMJ by committing the offenses indicated: Article 89, for being disrespectful to a superior commissioned officer; Article 90, for offering violence against a superior commissioned officer in the execution of his duties; Article 121, for stealing five cartons of cigarettes from the Post Exchange; and Article 128, for assaulting a civilian employee of the Post Exchange.
On 3 April 1972, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an UD discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged his understanding that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.
The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed that he receive an UD. On 20 April 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. This document also confirms that at the time of his discharge the applicant had completed 1 year, 6 months, and 20 days of creditable active military service.
On 12 September 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) found the applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable, and it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was told that his discharge would be automatically upgraded within six months, and it carefully considered his request to upgrade his discharge in order to allow him to obtain VA benefits. However, it finds neither of these factors are sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application to either the ADRB or this Board requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The record confirms that the ADRB considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge in 1974, after it concluded his discharge was both proper and equitable.
3. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, and being advised of the consequences of requesting an administrative discharge in lieu of court-martial, which included the loss of VA benefits, the applicant voluntarily requested separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.
4. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and that the character of his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted in this case.
5. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
GW___ __SK___ __RO
DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085699 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/05/22 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1972/04/26 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120001654
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The applicants overall record of service is was not sufficiently meritorious to support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of his final discharge and absent evidence of an error or injustice his discharge processing, it does not support an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004124C070208
The applicant states, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) was upgraded to a GD by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). On 25 June 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicant’s discharge from an UD to a GD. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004172C070208
The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following two dates for the offense(s) indicated: 29 April 1972, for being AWOL from 30 March through 17 April 1972 and 25 September 1972, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. On 3 April 1973, the applicant was discharged accordingly. On 14 February 1985, the Army Discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002992C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 September 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050002992 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Michael J. Flynn | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. However, the record includes a separation medical examination that confirms the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106653C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 January 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004106653 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. LaVerne M. Douglas | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 10 February 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002038
The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). He further indicated that he understood what an UD was and that he would accept one to get out of the Army. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003590C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge confirms he completed 2 years and 9 days of creditable active military service. On 24 May 1973, after having carefully reviewed the applicant’s record and the issues he presented, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) concluded the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012513
On 6 August 1975, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he receive an UD discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. The evidence of record further shows the applicant voluntarily requested discharge to avoid a trial by court-martial that may have resulted in his receiving a punitive discharge. Given his extensive disciplinary history, his record of service clearly did not support the issue of a GD or HD by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010115C071029
On 15 October 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed the applicant receive an UD. The minority found the applicant had resigned for the good of the service and knew the consequences of an UD, and that there was an absence of documentation supporting that would mitigate the applicant's AWOL offenses, and they concluded the applicant's discharge was properly and equitably...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014606
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 26 August 1972, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued a UD under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. On 31 August 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.